Post on 21-Dec-2015
Application of management and systems engineering to student
projects
The example of the Auburn University Student Space
Program
Outline
1. What is the Auburn University Student Space Program (AUSSP)?
2. Lessons learned after 5 years
3. Corrective steps taken and preliminary results
What is AUSSP?
• Member of the National Space Grant Student Satellite Program
• Involves about 35 undergraduate students any time in three-five teams– Auburn High-Altitude Balloonning (AHAB) team– AubieSat-I (CubeSat) team– AubieSat-II (NanoSat) team– Mars team– Management team
National Space Grant Student Satellite Program
Crawl – Walk – Run – Fly
From model rockets to Mars
http://ssp.arizona.edu/sgsatellites
“CRAWL”
BalloonSat Programs
CanSat Programs
“WALK”
CubeSat ProgramsSounding Rocket Programs
“RUN”
Arizona State UniversityASUSat 1
Colorado Space Grant’s Citizen Explorer 1
Colorado, Arizona, and NewMexico: Three-Corner Sat
Nanosat Programs
“FLY”To the Moon and Mars
External support & opportunities to get involved…
Some Suggested activities:
Science analysisSoftware tools for data storage, handling, accessProject ManagementSystems EngineeringMission OperationsSpacecraft subsystemsDesign, build, test, calibration, operations, performance maintenanceCommunications, PowerStructures, Mechanisms, Thermal Science, InstrumentsAttitude, orbitAerial mobility (Flyers), Surface Mobility (Rovers)Prototyping/developing applicable technologiesPublic InformationK-12 programs (ed. Modules, teacher training, etc.)
Why Student Projects?
• Aging Workforce
• Inspire & Retain– Pipeline issue– Attract and keep best students in STEM
• Active learning
• Job training: learning process
The AHAB Program
• Crawl level• Freshmen and Sophomores• Class: Physics of the World Around Us
(3 Credits)• Launch payloads to the edge of space
(altitude range 80,000 - 100,000 feet)• Max weight: 16 lbs
The AHAB Program
GOALS
• Reliable launcher
• Importance of control: cut-down system
• Shielding
• Outreach program for K-12
• Science experiments
QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Troubleshooting!
<= Mooring
AS-I CubeSat
• Walk level• Juniors and Seniors• Class: Physics of the World Around Us (3
Credits)• Use COTS• Science mission being defined• Mass ≤ 1-kg; Cube of 10-cm sides
AS-I CubeSat
GOALS• Students develop technical as well as
systems engineering and management skills designing, building, testing and operating a CubeSat
• Put first AU satellite in LEO• AS-I performs successfully in space• Develop a steady student satellite capability
at AU
AS-II NanoSat
• Run level• Exceptional Juniors and Seniors• Potential students are working on AS-I• Mass ≤ 50-kg; Max linear dimension: 45-cm• Submit proposal to AFOSR: deadline for
submission: 15 October• Radiation mitigation experiment
Mars Student Activities
• Fly level• Magnetic Investigation of Mars by Interacting
Consortia (MIMIC)– Work with JPL and 10 SG Consortia– AUSSP in charge of science and instruments for the mission– Measuring the remnant magnetic field of Mars => loss of
atmosphere => loss of liquid surface water => impact on potential life
– Mission abandoned: NASA launcher scrapped– AU: six participating students, two spent Summer 04 at JPL
Mars Student Activities
• AU students @ JPL during summer– Luther Richardson - 2003– Ben Spratling and Eric Massey - 2004– Jason Stewart - 2005– Eric Grimes - 2006
• INSPIRATION in 2006: a robotic weather station on surface of Mars (11 SG students: 2 from Alabama)
• Eric Grimes in charge of instruments
Management Team
• Students from non-technical majors: finance, business, accounting, nutrition, journalism, history, etc.
• No class credit in physics• Student Program Manager• Positions: CFO, HRO, PRO, ITO• Meetings twice a week• Support program and tech teams
Management Team
• Program support– Budget, purchasing, accounting– Fund raising & visibility on campus and beyond– Recruitment– Contact information– Class rolls/participation– Wiki and website– Certificates and awards– Longitudinal tracking– Socials– SEDS
Program history
• Program started in Fall 2001• Immediately started both a CubeSat
and a Ballooning program• First balloon launch with recovery in
Nov. 2001• Added a Mars mission in Fall 2003• Added a NanoSat project in 2006
Program evaluation - Pros• Over 100 students participated• Five students to JPL Summer Programs• One student at least with a NASA job• Two students presently “co-oping” with NASA• Six balloon launches• A CubeSat partially designed and the structure built• Tested CubeSat ejection from P-Pod in C-9• Four HS experiments ready for balloon flight• Learned from a large number of mistakes
Program evaluation - Cons
• Only six balloon flights of which four were not found the day of launch
• No final design yet of AS-I after five years
• Non-productive AHAB teams in 2005: one year without a launch
• Year wasted with insufficient students for AS-I in Fall 2005 and Spring 2006
Analysis
• We could not make a purely student-led program work
• Need to teach and implement process: – Management– Systems Engineering
• We were not successful in getting enough students to commit
• Lack of support of engineering over years
Lessons learned - 1• Faculty mentor
– Used to work through student team manager– Now directly involved in all activities– Sets the tone right from the beginning– Runs team activities as a laboratory– Is now seen as the captain of the boat
• Student manager– Used to run the labs– Now helps mentor manage the lab meetings, learns
management and takes on increasing responsibilities with time
• Student systems engineer– Learns skills form mentor and experts in and outside labs
Lessons learned - 2
• Process– Used to be pointed out on an as needed basis– “Building fever” kills process and produces failure– Process now taught to - and immediately applied by
-the whole team in the first weeks of the semester
• Recruitment– High turn-over rates– Learning curve– Need to recruit top students – Recruitment strategy that works
Lesson learned - 3
• Student commitment– Strong mentor leadership => students feel more
secure– Responsibility matrix signed– Make sure students have a job they can do and
like to do– Certificates– Summer jobs expanded– Participation in conferences– NASA and AE industry contacts for jobs
Lessons learned - 4
• Student participation– Participate in project objectives, requirements and
tasks definition: take ownership of project– Each student has a responsibility matrix - no more
watching the few gung-ho students work and getting disconnected
• Documentation– No lab exit before activities are documented– Last week of semester is documentation week– Documentation is significant part of grade
Learning Management - 1
• Each semester’s work is defined as a project• Students are presented the status of the
system they are to work on• The mentor has defined the vision, mission, a
few broad goals, milestones and deliverables for the semester
• The students having learned the basics of the system are ready to work out the objectives for each goal
Learning Management - 2
• The students work out:– The objectives for each goal– The system’s operational requirements– The subsystems’ requirements– The tasks to be performed based on the
objectives and requirements
• The tasks are organized as a Work Breakdown Structure (WBS)
Learning Management - 3
• The WBS includes duration of tasks• A network diagram reveals the order in which
tasks are to be accomplished• The critical path is identified• A Gantt Chart represents the schedule• Students do an inventory of materials• Students make a list of needed tools and
materials• Students are now ready to start building
Learning Management - 4
• Each lab session starts with– A quick status of project – A look at the Gantt Chart
• A comparison of the two is made and corrective action is defined
• The goals of the session are set• Lab work proceeds: design and/or building is
done, tests are performed• Results are documented before leaving the lab
Important ingredients
• Discipline
• Flexibility
• Reviews
Systems Engineering - 1
• Plans and guides the engineering effort
• Focuses on system as a whole
• Bridges traditional engineering disciplines
• Necessary due to specialization and complexity of modern systems
Systems Engineering - 2
• Hierarchical elements of a system:– Mission Architecture => Balloon, Rigging, Tracking
Box, Payload, Launch Team, Ground Station, Tracking Teams, Path Determination, Outreach
– System => Tracking Box– Subsystems => Structure & Rigging, Primary
Tracking, Secondary Tracking, Power, Cut-Down– Components => Transceivers, GPS, TNC, Cut-
Down Board– Parts => batteries, cables
System Life Cycle
Post Development
Engineering Development
Concept Development
Operational deficiencies
Technical opportunities
System functional specifications
Defined system concept
Production specifications
Production system Installed operation system
Operation & maintenance documentation
Source: Systems Engineering, Principles and Practice, Alexander Kossiakoff and William N. Sweet, Wiley-Interscience 2003
PHASE
Step Needs
Analysis Concept
Exploration Concept
Definition Advanced
Development Engineering
Design Integration
& Evaluation
Requirements Analysis
Analyze needs Analyze
operational requirements
Analyze performance requirements
Analyze functional
requirements
Analyze design requirements
Analyze requirements
Functional Definition
Define System Functions
Define subsystem functions
Define component functions
Define subcomponent
functions
Define part functions
Define functional
tests
Physical Definitions
Visualize subsysems, technology
Visualize components, architectures
Select components, architectures
Specify component construction
Specify subcomponent construction
Specify test equipment
Design Validation
Validate needs,
feasibility
Validate performance requirements
Simulate, validate system
effectiveness
Test critical subsystems
Validate component construction
Test & evaluate system
Source: Systems Engineering, Principles and Practice, Alexander Kossiakoff and William N. Sweet, Wiley-Interscience 2003
Systems Engineering Method over Life Cycle
Results - 1
• Started August 24• Extraordinary difference from past
– Student participation– Eagerness to work– Confidence– Learning– Two students spent 7 hours doing inventory!
Results - 2
• In three weeks, both Balloon and CubeSat have:– Defined semester objectives– Worked out requirements: mission, system,
subsystem– Developed their WBS at work session level– Established a schedule– Established status of system– Done a full inventory– Started work on subsystems– Ordered components
Conclusions
Some requirements for a successful student program– Full faculty involvement with whole team– Full student participation in project and work definitions– Clearly defined process– Students learning and applying management and systems
engineering principles, tools and techniques– Each student has responsibilities and work load well defined– Fast track tech skills development– Technical expertise provided– Develop camaraderie between team members